Good Lord, but you are one clever, funny Eph. You and Jeff are a formidable team. Please come around more often.

What I quite clearly wrote is that no one has the right to tell other women who they should hook up with. No one.

It would seem that this stance, if consistently held, would put anyone who has a strong view, one way or the other, about sexual relationships, whether they be feminists or counter-feminists or anything else, beyond the pale of decent debate. Is criticism and debate about sexual culture off limits now?

I’m sure you’ll now resort to some special pleading that puts Shalit’s views in particular beyond the pale, but makes room for more “sex-positive” feminists, or even just regular feminists who have a strong opinion about sexuality, but don’t have Shalit’s socially conservative sympathies.

(you do realize that Shalit was basically criticizing an entire culture, and that her life’s work does not consist of going into individual dorm rooms and breaking up hook up sessions, right?)

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

By these definitions all opinions are equal. Maybe another word would convey your point better.

@JG: Do you or Derek have any publishing track record or post-graduate degrees in human sexuality (EDIT: or the Victorian era)? If not, I’m afraid you’re not qualified to comment on this issue, according to Derek’s Rules of Internet Argumentation.

Here is what I wrote regarding the “hook up culture” question, as part of a longer sentence: “advocating that someone else should tell women who they should hook up with and under what circumstances”.

Here is what you drew from that: “Women who dislike the hook up culture are “simply wrong”! ”

Now, I don’t even think it is a matter of parsing to say that you clearly and completely either did not grasp what I wrote, or that you don’t care and chose to misrepresent it. Neither, frankly, would shock me.

What I quite clearly wrote is that no one has the right to tell other women who they should hook up with. No one. Wendy Shalit’s decision to condemn other women, adults, I might add, for decisions they make of their own free will is completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. Yes. I stand by that. If it is a reflection on MY sense of inclusiveness that sanctimonious adults don’t get to tell other adults what they can do within the boundaries of the law, color me not inclusive. But that’s a pretty tortured reading of inclusiveness.

Your followup post was even dumber and even less intellectually honest, if such a thing is possible.

So Ronit: A) Just Dumb? B) Just a liar? C) Both?

Trick question! The answer was D: Not worth distinguishing. But I do guess that obfuscating and misleading is easier than engaging with what I actually wrote.

But seriously: Are there actually people on this list who think they have the right to tell other adults how to lead their lives?

dcat

My comment wasn’t pointed at you or at Shalit. It was in response to David’s use of “traditional” in comment #54.

And what I said about judging others has mostly to do with the kind of action that results in real attempts to inhibit their individual rights, again, not specifically to do with Shalit.

I have nothing against your crusade for Shalit. I will say I was completely unimpressed with the content and manner of her presentation. But then again, I have only seen the link that appeared here on EB.

As a woman who went to Williams and was actively involved for 80% of my time there with a religious student group and was not a fan of the “hook up” culture, I’ll tell you that I find Wendy Shalit and her generalizations about the prevailing attitudes of women at Williams to be wrong and insulting. It is not a newsflash that hook up culture isn’t empowering for men or women. She has a schtick that she sells, and she sells well to a group of people who want to believe her proposition. I never, literally NEVER say anyone made fun of for NOT having casual sex. Seriously. Who the f*** does that? Do people have casual sex, sure. Do people talking about doing so, sure. But I saw far, far, far more people (mostly women) get called sluts or something else for hooking up a lot. This is also not new. Not earth shattering. I find Wendy Shalit annoying and reductive. And the Victorian era was NOT good for women on the whole. Sorry. That is fact not opinion.

If the bigotry brigade wants to have their own damned event opposing the rights of gays, embracing admissions policies that would ultimately limit the number of blacks and Hispanics at Williams, and advocating that someone else should tell women who they should hook up with and under what circumstances (because the Victorian Era was such a good one for the ladies) let them go ahead. But my Williams is choosing to go the other way. My Williams happens to be gloriously right on these issues. All are allowed to have their opinions. But don’t confuse the right to have any damned fool opinion one wants with the foolish proposition that all opinions are equally valid. They are not.

dcat

Award: silliest comment I have ever seen on ephblog.

David, if I could demonstrate that, say, 20 percent of the Williams campus was indeed racist, or believed that women should not have jobs other than homemaker, or some other such belief, would you THEN encourage the college to invite a racist or sexist to represent their views on campus? Why can’t we have someone, who, I don’t know, talks about religion on campus WITHOUT a primary focus on demonizing a minority group at Williams? I bet, for example, that the current chaplain at William could provide a thoughtful discussion of religion on campus life. And on one would object to him/her speaking. I know Rabbi Scherr and he is an incredibly thoughtful guy who I bet would also be a great speaker about religious values in campus life.

Again, David, I think there could conceivably be speakers who are not racist, sexist, or homophobic who can address issues related to religion on campus. You, apparently, do not.

I find it hard to believe that anyone at Williams is excluded for holding traditional Christian values. I think they are more likely excluded for adhering to viewpoints that include proselytizing and/or making judgments on the behavior of others.

Of course! The very worse sin that a Williams student could be accused of is “making judgments on the behavior of others.” Can’t have that!

Recall Magby’s claim:

Each night, my board would be erased or defaced several times. Many times, the writings would mock my “Word of the Day” or my religion.

Mocking someone’s religion is every bit as gauche as mocking their race, gender or sexuality. Surely, we can all agree on that?

Also, if it’s okay for socially liberal individuals to proselytize their values, then surely it’s okay for a socially conservative individuals to do the same.

as to your line about affirmative action, that’s laughably wrong.

Ronit–the line about “privilege” might lead to an argument that traditional christianity is not unprivileged @ williams or in society more broadly. It’s like if athletes wanted to bring a speaker on athletics and american culture because they feel marginalized in the classroom at times. Valid, but is that due to a lack of “privilege”. This is, to a significant extent, quibbling. but the exclusion of traditional christianity is in some form, fundamentally different from the exclusion of muslims or hindus or atheists on a campus because once one leaves pockets of elite liberal areas traditional christianity holds great power in society.

To put it far better, if claiming williams had the money to invite one speaker, should they bring a wendy shalit or a leading figure on integrating islam and american society? I’d pick the second, personally, as more fitting their mission statement. Both could fit the mission, but money, time, and resources are limited.